DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 1 3 -1 5 and 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Degroot et al. US 11,230,641 B2 with evidentiary support reference Klosin et al. US 9,000,108 B2. Re garding claims 1, 3-4, 1 3 -15 and 18 Degroot teaches INFUSE olefin copolymer blend Sample #2-Medium MWD (col 33, Table 4), which is cast into a film (col 33, lines 45-47) and which comprises 52 wt% INFUSE 9007 and 48 wt% of INFUSE 9507. The INFUSE olefins are ethylene-octene block copolymers (Col 33, Table 3A). The first INFUSE 9007 has a density of 0.866 g/cm 3 , Mn of 65210 g/mole, Mw/Mn of 2.42 and melt index of 0.5 g/10 min (Col 33, Table 3A and 3B), which corresponds to the claimed (i). The second INFUSE 9507 has a density of 0.866 g/cm 3 , Mn of 37660 g/mole, Mw/Mn of 2.36 and melt index of 5 g/10 min (Col 33, Table 3A and 3B), and corresponds to the claimed (ii). The INFUSE blend ethylene copolymer composition has a melt index of 1.5 g/10 min, Mw/Mn of 2.47 (Col 33, Table 4) and additionally the Mn of the first ethylene copolymer 65210 g/mole (Mn 1 ) is greater than the Mn of the second ethylene copolymer 37660 g/mole (Mn 2 ), which read on the claimed requirements. The ethylene copolymer blend Sample #2 would possess the density of 0.866 g/cm 3 since each constituent INFUSE 9007 and 9507 have the density of 0.866 g/cm 3 , and meets the density d3 requirement. Degroot does not address the levels of hafnium in the polyethylene-octene INFUSE olefin block copolymers, however information on the amount of hafnium present in the polyethylene-octene copolymer can be gleaned by the evidentiary support reference Klosin who discloses that the commercial INFUSE TM ethylene octene copolymers from Dow Chemical company are generated in the presence of hafnium based catalyst system (col 45, lines 24-26 and reference claim 1). Klosin provides an example polyethylene octene(PEO) copolymer BB (Col 105, Table 4) with similar Mw as INFUSE 9507, which utilizes Hf based catalyst with catalyst efficiency of 726,000 gPEO copolymer/g of metal (Hf). Hf content can be calculated to be 1/726,000 x 10 6 ppm =1.4 ppm. Owing to the closeness of the materials make-ups and as evidenced by Klosin, similar catalyst levels would be present in both INFUSE 9007 and 9507, and the blend composition of Degroot Sample #2 would inherently possess the required hafnium level s of applicants’ claims, including claim 13 . Regarding claim 2 , Degroot teaches (col 33, Table 3A and 3B), polyethylene -octene block copolymers INFUSE 9007 and INFUSE 9507 are polymerized utilizing the same catalyst system, and have the same density, similar Mw/Mn values. Since short chain branching influences the density, and the Mw/Mn, both INFUSE 9007 and INFUSE 9507 would inherently possess similar short chain branching levels and thus satisfy SCB1/SCB2 condition. Regarding claims 6, 9 and 17 , as discussed when addressing claim 1, since the presence of third ethylene copolymer is optional, the claimed requirements are met by Degroot’s Sample #2 (Table 4) ethylene octene copolymer blend. Regarding claim 7 , as discussed when addressing claim 1, the first and second polyethylene-octene copolymers of Degroot meet all the product structural requirements. Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. Regarding claim 19 , the ethylene copolymer blend composition is taught by Degroot as discussed when addressing claim 1. Degroot teaches multilayered film structure where the core layer is derived from the polyolefin blend (reference claim 8 and col 23, lines 40-47), thus meeting the claimed requirements. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Degroot et al. U S 11,230,641 B2 with evidentiary support reference Klosin et al. US 9,000,108 B2 and further evidence provided by Li Pi Shan et al. US 2006/0199930 A1 (cited within Degroot) . Regarding claim 10 , i n addition to that disclosed regarding claim 1, Degroot cites (col 9, lines 29-35), reference U.S. patent application Ser.No. 11/376,835 ( Li Pi Shan et al. US 20060199930 A1), entitled "Ethylene/α-Olefin Block Interpolymers", filed on Mar. 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference to provide additional details on the ethylene octene copolymers . Reference Li Pi Shan para [0031] teaches that the ethylene/octene copolymers have an octene content of 10 to 15 mol%, which meet s the claimed requirement. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 5, 16, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degroot et al. US 11,230,641 B2 with evidentiary support reference Klosin et al. US 9,000,108 B2 as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 1 3 -15 and 17-19 above. Regarding claim 5 , Degroot teaches (col 9, lines 55-57) that the ethylene/a-olefin interpolymers used in embodiments of the invention have a Mw/Mn from about 1.7 to about 3.5 , overlapping the claimed requirement . In the case where the claimed ranges “ overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art ” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding claim 16 , Degroot discloses (col 13, line 8) that the density of the ethylene α-olefin have a density in the range of 0.855 to 0.935 g/cm 3 . As discussed when addressing claim 1, Degroot’s first and second ethylene copolymers both have density of 0.866 g/cm 3 . For a person having ordinary skill in the art, an obvious second ethylene copolymer derived from the teachings of Degroot would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art with the expectation of success, as a density of 0.900 g/cm 3 is within the recommended range of Degroot , to go along with the first ethylene copolymer having a density of 0.866 g/cm 3 . Regarding claims 20 and 21 , Degroot teaches a blend composition of two or more polymers (col 2, lines 58-60). Degroot additionally discloses linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) (col 4, lines 12-31), and recognizes them as equivalents to the ethylene alpha olefin copolymers. As discussed , when addressing claim s 1 and 19 , the ethylene copolymer composition is taught by Degroot . Degroot further teaches multilayered film structure where the core film layer is derived from the polyolefin blend (reference claim 8 and col 23, lines 40-47). An obvious composition derived from the teaching of Degroot would be where both LLDPE and ethylene copolymer composition (Degroot Sample #2 of Table 4 ) are blended in equal amounts to generate a core film layer. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) . See MPEP 2144.06. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degroot with evidentiary support reference Klosin, as applied to claims 1- 4 , 6-7, 9, 1 3 -15 and 17-19 , and further evidentiary support of Kazemi et al. US 2019/0135960 A1 . Regarding claim 8, Degroot (and Klosin) are silent on the composition distribution breadth index, CDBI 50 . However analogous reference Kazemi who also teaches ethylene /α-Olefin (title and abstract) discloses that the homogeneous catalyst derived ethylene copolymers have CDBI 50 greater than 70% (Kazemi, para [0040] and para [0179]). Since Degroot’s first and second ethylene copolymers, as discussed when addressing claim 1, Sample #2 (Table 4) are derived from homogeneous catalyst systems , they would be expected to have CDBI 50 greater than 70%, overlapping the claimed requirement . Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have utilized any CDBI 50 provided for by Degroot, as evidenced through Klosin and Kazemi et al., for purposes of achieving acceptably developed products as provided through Degroot with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results . Claim s 11 -12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degroot with evidentiary support reference Klosin, as applied to claims 1- 4 , 6-7, 9, 1 3 -15 and 17-19 and further in view of Li Pi Shan et al. US 2006/0199930 A1 ( cited within Degroot ) . Regarding claims 1 1 -12 , Degroot cites (col 9, lines 29-35), reference U.S. patent application Ser.No. 11/376,835 ( Li Pi Shan et al. US 20060199930 A1), entitled "Ethylene/α-Olefin Block Interpolymers", filed on Mar. 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference to provide additional details on the ethylene octene copolymers . Reference Li Pi Shan para [0031] teaches that the ethylene/octene copolymers have an octene content of 10 to 15 mol%, which overlap the claimed requirement. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 19-23 of copending Application No. 18/546,113 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they differ in overlap between material make-ups and amounts in a manner which would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Surbhi M Du whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9960 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00 am to 5:00pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Heidi (Riviere) Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1831 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /S.M.D./ Examiner Art Unit 1765 /JOHN M COONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765